Remember asbestos?

It was thought to be miraculous stuff.  It is nearly 100% chemically inert.  It does not burn, evaporate, dissolve in nearly all liquids or undergo material chemical reactions with nearly everything.  The exception is strong acids.

As a result it was believed to be extremely safe around humans and animals, in that it didn't chemically react and thus would not biochemically react.  Of course you could choke on finely-divided powder and similar which would be extremely serious because being that it didn't dissolve in anything your body couldn't eliminate it either, but other than that nobody expected trouble with it.  It was used all over the place for insulation, fireproofing and similar for this reason.

Everyone who believed that was wrong.

The astounding thing is that nobody, after we discovered this, went back and revised their view of cancer in light of that which was then proved.

That is, there are two "cancer" related things: Those that cause cancer and those that promote cancer.  They're not the same.  To cause cancer a thing must be active either at a serious biochemical or nuclear level.  That is, ionizing radiation causes cancer because the radiation literally damages the DNA and, if that occurs during mitosis you can wind up with a cell that has no (or wildly dysfunctional) regulatory growth factors. Likewise a biochemically-active substance can damage the cellular machinery while division is taking place, resulting in a similar outcome.  That makes sense.

But we live in a universe where these causes are always present all around us.  Specifically, our planet is chock full of natural ionizing radiation sources.  The most-damaging of these are alpha emitters; an alpha particle is a helium nucleus and as radiation sources go it is very large (as compared with beta, which is an electron, or gamma, which is more-akin to energy such as light or radio frequencies, but at much higher levels of energy and fundamental frequency.)  Because alpha is so large on a comparative basis it is much more likely to hit and disrupt part of a DNA strand -- and thus cause cancer.  While intact skin is enough to block alpha particles there is no intact layer of dead skin in the lungs as that would prevent gas exchange, nor is such present in the intestines or there would be no nutrient absorption and both of which must happen for life to continue so any alpha-emitter you inhale or ingest can trivially cause cancer.

So why doesn't everything die of cancer shortly after coming into existence?

Because you, and everything living animal around you, have an immune system.  The fundamental job of the immune system is to find anything that is "not self" and destroy it.  This is the miracle of organized multicellular life and without it nothing with a life cycle of significant length would exist.  Yet we do exist, as do birds, mice, cats, dogs, ferrets, cows, elephants and so on.  We exist because the immune system finds these dysregulated cells, realizes they are "not self" and destroys them -- and so long as it successfully does so you do not have "cancer" in a clinical sense -- although in point of fact every one of you do, indeed, have cancer in you.

Oh by the way we have an extraordinarily incomplete view of precisely how the immune system works -- how it determines, for example, what is "self" and what is not and how all the components work together and under what circumstances they do, and don't lead to a correct -- that is healthy -- outcome.

Given this, however, how is it that a chemically inert thing can promote cancer?  That is, by what mechanism can asbestos do that -- because we know it does.

There's only one logical explanation: It causes inflammation in the body, that is, the immune system knows it is "not self" and tries to eliminate it but cannot because the substance is chemically inert.  The attack on it is thus unsuccessful but the immune system does not give up since the "not self" is still there and that eventually leads it to fail to detect other cancerous cells in the vicinity and be unable to destroy them.

That is, asbestos doesn't cause cancer (because an inert thing can't cause something) but it does promote cancer.

The distinction is important.

It has also been ignored.

Well, that was ridiculously and I'd argue criminally stupid.

Additionally, it has been discovered that the mRNA vaccines inhibit essential immunological pathways, thus impairing early interferon signaling. Within the framework of COVID-19 vaccination, this inhibition ensures an appropriate spike protein synthesis and a reduced immune activation. Evidence is provided that adding 100 % of N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ) to the mRNA vaccine in a melanoma model stimulated cancer growth and metastasis, while non-modified mRNA vaccines induced opposite results, thus suggesting that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development. 

The mRNA covid jabs deliberately substituted out uridine, an amino acid, for a synthetic pseudo-uridine because without doing that the mRNA material was rapidly and efficiently identified as "not self" and destroyed by the immune system, preventing it from working.  In other words the developers deliberately used a substance that "looked like" (to transcription in the cell) uridine but the immune system was incapable of detecting and destroying it.

Now we have hard evidence that doing this causes the promotion of cancer.

Isn't this exactly what happens with asbestos by the same mechanism?

It is.

The immune system cannot destroy asbestos because it is chemically inert.  Pseudo-uridine was chosen specifically because the immune system did not tag and destroy it; without doing that the mRNA material never got delivered into the cells in sufficient quantity to produce enough spike to elicit a response before the immune system tagged and destroyed it.

What led people to believe that doing this was safe when we had a former example where it definitely was not, and yet the body knew it was "not self" because no such thing as pseudo-uridine exists in the body -- any body, of any animal, anywhere -- in the first place!  Well, of course we didn't look -- looking takes a lot of time, in fact many years, because cancer doesn't show up right away most of the time.

But there was every reason to believe you'd get fucked by doing this given our history with asbestos and oh, by the way, the same thing is true for machine-made seed oils, especially hydrogenated ones that are specifically designed not to break down.

The underlying cause is likely sustained and systemic, artificially-induced inflammation that the immune system cannot clear because the substance in question is not able to be destroyed by the immune system -- or in the case of seed oils in addition to them being engineered to not be destroyed (e.g. so they're "shelf stable" in the store without refrigeration) you keep introducing more of it by eating more and more of it.

Proved?  No, but a hypothesis that fits known facts and both explains the increase of cancers that initiated with ever-larger consumption of seed oils in fast food, fast casual and other dining away from home despite large decreases in smoking and thus smoking-related cancers and at the same time explains the FURTHER cancer increases we are seeing post-covid mRNA shots.

Yeah folks, you did a really fucking stupid thing if you took those shots and if you keep eating seed oils you are increasing your risk even further.

You can't un-take the shots but you can stop eating seed oils.

PS: What mitigates, to at least some degree, this risk?  Increasingly the evidence is...... Vitamin D.  In other words, the sun (in moderate amounts) and during months when you can't get enough that way, which for most of the US or darker-skinned people is at least half the year, reasonable levels of supplementation.  No, its not a panacea, but being deficient has no upside and plenty of potential downside both when it comes to infections and cancer -- and its either entirely free or extremely cheap to make sure you're not.  Oh, and what else are we told?  Stay out of the sun.  Yeah.

Every person engaged in "occupying" or otherwise obstructing lawful access to a university must be identified and blackballed from all future employment consideration until and unless they serve time and make restitution in full, at a 300% penalty rate, for any disruption they were involved in and go five full years without so much as a traffic ticket.

This is perfectly legal and it must be made known to everyone.

I don't care if the employer is McDoanlds.

If you don't do it then you deserve to be held financially responsible when you hire one of these people and they do something illegal while in your employ because they have a demonstrated willingness to break the law without remorse.

Enough of this bullshit.

Make violent protestors, those committing breaking and entering and those committing felony assault and mob action both jobless and homeless.

I'm tired of this crap and you should be too.

A recent report outlining China's direct involvement in fueling the fentanyl crisis in the United States has rightfully sent shockwaves through Congress and communities already reeling from the devastating impact of opioid addiction. The Select Committee on China’s findings uncovered China's subsidization of the production of illicit fentanyl precursors for export, shedding light on the complicity – and in some cases, outright support – of foreign actors in exacerbating this epidemic.   

As I noted several years ago when the fentanyl mess really got out of control China was the source of the precursors and there was no possible way that something at that sort of industrial scale in a communist nation wasn't happening with the full support and sponsorship of the government itself.

Well, now we have it.

You don't simply "find and arrest" the people responsible -- indeed you can't arrest them as there's no jurisdiction.

No, there's only one answer: An embargo, absolute ban on Chinese entry into the United States, ban on ownership of anything in the United States by any Chinese national and a bill to offset on a punitive basis their alleged "holdings" for each and every person who dies of a fentanyl overdose.

I said punitive and I meant it -- such as $1 million per person that is simply seized from their alleged "holdings" and returned to Treasury.

They don't like it?

Then cut off the drugs.

No?

Fine -- fuck 'em.

Enough of this shit folks.  China is literally poisoning Americans and if our government won't stop it then they should be forcibly ejected -- all of them -- and replaced with people who will.

No, the depravity wasn't that Trump filed and got heard an argument before the USSC that as President he has effective immunity from criminal statutes while in office, and to not uphold this means a future Administration can vindictively punish past acts.

The issue is that none of the "Justices" on either side of the alleged aisle asked the obvious and foundational question:

Why are we here in the first place when a full 20% of the US Economy rests on conduct that was criminalized over 100 years ago in 15 USC and which this Court has twice ruled unlawful 40 years ago yet not one indictment has been issued, and further over the last several Administrations, including both those of the Petitioner and Responding side, willfully and intentionally refused to bring millions of felony criminal charges under 8 USC §1324 relating to illegal immigration?

In the movies perhaps not but in the current world not only are Presidents routinely above the law without consequence (Biden giving the literal middle finger to the Supremes on College Debt) but executives routinely prosecute their political enemies for criminal offenses that their friends commit with impunity, and in many cases said friends are in fact found by both sides of the aisle to a degree that literal millions of said felonies are committed and deliberately ignored every single year and comprise one dollar in five, and likely one employee in five, in our economy.

So pardon me if I do not care about what has become a literal circus show including at the alleged "highest court in the land" which cannot be bothered to ask the seminal question that they of course know the answer to but which should color not only this case but any similar case until and unless the Executive actually honors the law they claim to uphold.

It would appear that, as I expected, the Supremes are looking to "split the baby" in this specific instance but doing that will not in any meaningful way resolve the issue.  Were I on the Court I would be inclined to write an opinion (and attempt to solicit consensus) delineating that such "immunity" only applies to matters of jurisdiction beyond the United States, such as claims before the ICC and similar, and that if Presidents past, present or future have an issue with Statutes applying to them and being enforced evenly without fear, favor or political bias, they need to start with their own Departments of Justice and, when States are implicated, use the incorporation clause of the 14th Amendment to compel compliance there as well.

After all that is allegedly the law of the land, and considering that the criminal and economic damage done by illegal immigration in this country today, never mind the one dollar in five which is almost entirely stolen through violations of 15 USC Chapter 1 I would absolutely decline to grant any President, irrespective of circumstance, any protection from said politically-driven harassment until and unless those acts of political harassment, financial harm, and even rape and murder are ended by actual enforcement of laws on the books for over 60 and 100 years, respective.

Until then I'd tell Trump and every other President past, present and future, to fuck off.